In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff alleged
that the defendant restaurant and the owners of the property
failed to keep the premises safe and provide proper security
which resulted in the plaintiff being attacked by a fellow patron
in the parking lot as she was leaving the defendants
establishment. The plaintiff suffered a broken nose, deviated
septum and hemorrhage to her right eye as a result of the attack.
The defendants denied the allegations, disputed liability and
disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiffs damages.

The female plaintiff was a patron at the defendant restaurant and
pub which was owned by one of the defendants. The plaintiff
believed that another patron was bullying her and so informed the
bars bouncer. The other patron and another individual followed
the plaintiff when she left the bar at approximately 1:30 a.m. on
October 8, ________. As the plaintiff was in the parking lot and was
having an argument with the other patron, the third patron came
up and punched her in the face.

As a result of the physical attack on the plaintiff, the
plaintiff suffered a fractured nose, a deviated septum and a
hemorrhage to her right eye. The plaintiff brought suit against
the defendant restaurant and its owner, as well as the restaurant
manager and the owners of the property on which the restaurant
was located. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were
negligent in failing to provide adequate security at the
premises, failed to have control over the premises including the
parking lot where the plaintiff was attacked and failed to ensure
the safety of the restaurants patrons.

The defendants denied the allegations. The property owners filed
a cross claim against the restaurant owner defendants seeking
indemnification under the terms of the lease agreement. The
defendants denied liability and disputed the nature and extent of
the plaintiffs injuries and alleged damages.

The plaintiff also filed a separate suit against the head of the
security at the restaurant who had attempted to break up and
prevent any attack, but was unsuccessful. The action against the
bouncer was consolidated into this litigation although the
bouncer defaulted.

The matter proceeded to trial. The jury determined that the
owners of the restaurant were 60% liable and the defendant
bouncer was 40% liable for the plaintiffs injuries. The jury
awarded the plaintiff the total sum of $________, which consisted
of $________ in economic damages, $________ in non-economic damages
and $________ in punitive damages as to the defendant bouncer.